How do you define SCIENCE?

[YoursTrue]

True religion is love, and so it is that in this case at least the 'No true Scotsman' fallacy does not apply. It is not love which causes wars but selfish quarreling, giving rise to pride and anger. A successful politician is able to get a rise out of one group and pit them against another, and in the process they gain influence. If we are not wise to this we easily fall into their support and become their canon fodder. Such people appear everywhere, and we have various names for them: "Dissembler," "Dark empath," "Wolf in sheep's clothing," "False prophet," "antichrist," and "Leader." The leaders bring the people together to fight. They make use of our concerns, even our concern for one another and twist it to pit us against each other for their own entertainment. Yes, it entertains them.

The more I watch the news reports about this war in Israel vs. Palestine plus more, the more I see Jesus' words, Matthew 24:14 - "And this good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come." Science supports bombs, swords, chemical warfare, then puts up maybe hospitals to fix the damage. You know many don't believe, but Jesus said, "Let your kingdom come..."

 

[YoursTrue]

No, that’s not what I am saying at all.

Evidence and proofs are two completely different things, and you and other creationists don’t understand the differences.

Proofs are like those mathematical equations that I have mentioned, they are abstract representations of explaining the phenomena, through the logical uses of variables, constants and numbers. They are parts of the explanations in models of theories or in models of hypotheses.

The explanation along with any equations, has to be tested and verified before they can be considered true.

Evidence (including experiments) are physical parts of phenomena. Evidence are what required to determine if the theory or hypothesis is true or false.

if the evidence refute the explanation, then it would mean the equations (or proofs) have also been refuted. That mean the explanation plus any equation, are either weak or wrong.

You need to stop thinking that evidence and proof are the same things.

this is why I find creationists are science illiterates, because they don’t understand proofs only exist in equations. Proofs are not physical evidence.

Dont get me wrong, YoursTrue. Maths and equations are useful tools in sciences, but they don’t determine which is or which isn’t science. Only evidence & experiments, plus the accompanying data, can determine if the theory is scientifically valid.

I need to stop thinking that proof and evidence are the same thing? I do not. But evidence does not PROVE the posit. Or better put, theory. It does not. Therefore...have a good one.

 

[osgart]

Science in my perception is about discovering natural, physical processes and predicting outcomes of how those processes behave, and what properties phenomena have.

Science uses models to predict behaviour and identify properties of physical phenomena. Science tests models in order to falsify and refute those models in the hopes of finding workable theories that support or reject the models put forth.

Science is no better than the reliability of their testing methods. Science is evidence driven and does not enter the proving business of seeking any ultimate truth about existence.

The focus of science is to do what works in the physical world for practical and useful purposes.

Explanation, and interpretation of evidence is the sole realm of philosophy. Just using evidence a scientist can determine facts about properties and processes of physical phenomena.

Science and philosophy are marriage partners. Science models rely on axiomatic assumptions about how the physical world works, and thus are never fully divorced from philosophy. The idea that science and philosophy are totally separate endeavours is false.

As far as religion goes, the study and questioning of religion relies on proof from evidence. This type of proving anything in religion is in the realm of philosophical interpretation to formulate explanations given the evidence available.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The more I watch the news reports about this war in Israel vs. Palestine plus more, the more I see Jesus' words, Matthew 24:14 - "And this good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come." Science supports bombs, swords, chemical warfare, then puts up maybe hospitals to fix the damage. You know many don't believe, but Jesus said, "Let your kingdom come..."

I think Palestine and Israel are mere pieces of land, and it is unfortunate that someone thinks more of them. The church is both Christ's body and the bride of Christ. An adulterous generation seeks a sign. What we lack is love. We don't need barefoot Jesus to stand on a bit of stone. Its got nothing to do with what is important.


Let me point out how ridiculous it is that you won't accept that the church is the body of Christ and that you are telling me that what matters is a flying man:

​

"...Who may ascend the mountain of the LORD? Who may stand in his holy place? The one who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not trust in an idol or swear by a false god.... Lift up your heads, you gates; be lifted up, you ancient doors, that the King of glory may come in." -- Psalm 24​

In Psalm 24 what mountain is of so much import? You must realize its not about climbing a mountain despite its wording. As a US citizen I can reach *any* mountain in the known world. Even a nobody like me can go to a city named 'Jerusalem' today, and I may climb that mountain with a guide. Even I (now that I have a job) can afford to get on a plane and be on the mountains of Jerusalem within six days -- faster if I get an expedited Visa. I'll have a debt for a while -- but I can do it. Sure, I'll have to tip someone five weeks wages, but they'll take me there. Nobody is stopping me from climbing the mountain of the LORD. And how about I wash my hands? How about I have my heart cleaned by a heart surgeon? Then I shall have clean hands and a pure heart. Not what the scripture means? No, of course not. But Jesus must fly and stand barefoot upon a mountain, and the church cannot be his body.

When I say the church is the body of Christ it is every bit as pithy and meaningful as saying Jesus is returning. It is the same thing, pretty sure.

Have an even nicer day.

 

[John53]

Since theory is true then it is simple fact that species evolve, big bangs explode, and there is no God.

Which theory is the theory of no God? I've never come across that one.

 

[cladking]

Which theory is the theory of no God? I've never come across that one.

Many skeptics, most believers in science, and most atheists believe there is no God.

It is virtually axiomatic but others consider it as a corollary to abiogenesis.

You should ask those who believe in such things rather than I.

 

[John53]

Many skeptics, most believers in science, and most atheists believe there is no God.

It is virtually axiomatic but others consider it as a corollary to abiogenesis.

You should ask those who believe in such things rather than I.

Not what I asked. You said there's a theory of no God. Can you show it to me?

 

[gnostic]

Explanation, and interpretation of evidence is the sole realm of philosophy. Just using evidence a scientist can determine facts about properties and processes of physical phenomena.

Science and philosophy are marriage partners. Science models rely on axiomatic assumptions about how the physical world works, and thus are never fully divorced from philosophy. The idea that science and philosophy are totally separate endeavours is false.

As far as religion goes, the study and questioning of religion relies on proof from evidence. This type of proving anything in religion is in the realm of philosophical interpretation to formulate explanations given the evidence available.

This is the part I disagree with.

Yes, there are some philosophies where there are some matches between the two, such as Natural Philosophy, Methodological Naturalism, Metaphysical Naturalism, Empiricism, Logical Positivism, and some others.

You will have to be more specific as to which one or ones you are talking about, osgart.

Because there are whole lot of philosophies out there, that have absolutely nothing to do with science whatsoever, literally hundreds of them, possibly even thousands of them, especially when you’d consider that some schools break off from their parent schools, and most of these I have not heard of them. Many of them are just useless garbage.

Before the sciences were called “Natural Sciences” (from the mid-19th century), and before “Natural Sciences” were broken down into different spheres of sciences, such as -

• Physics,
• Chemistry,
• Earth Sciences,
• Astronomy, and
• Life Sciences…

…Natural Sciences were actually called “Natural Philosophy”, prior to the mid-19th century.

Natural Philosophy started back in Ancient Greece, in the Archaic period, when some Greek natural philosophers tried to break away from the traditions and away from the superstitions of Greek religions. From every early on, the natural philosophers saw part of their solutions with mathematics, particularly geometry.

It was Thomas Henry Huxley, who revolutionised public school and university education system in the UK, to separate anything relating to religions (eg theology) from science classrooms and lectures. In the 18th century, the Age of Enlightenment have already started to separate state and law from religion, but this separation did not occur in the education system, until Huxley started the separation that would spread quickly across Europe, then to the American continents, and then to Asia in the 20th century.

Methodological Naturalism is the one that come closest to Natural Sciences and Physical Sciences, in particular the needs that each model must meet the requirements of -

1. Falsification (or Falsifiability)
2. the Scientific Method

Scientific Method involves a whole lot of steps, but it can be broadly tied down two main steps:

1. Formulating the Hypothesis
2. Testing the Hypothesis (which also analysing the test results)

All proposed models must be tested, before they can be accepted as “science“, but not just new models. Any changes to models, must also be tested.

Science may be tied to only some of the philosophies, but not to all philosophies.

 

[gnostic]

Many skeptics, most believers in science, and most atheists believe there is no God.

It is virtually axiomatic but others consider it as a corollary to abiogenesis.

You should ask those who believe in such things rather than I.

Atheism and theism are all tied to the question of existence of deity or deities. It is a question about religion.

Neither of them have anything to do with science, especially not with Natural Sciences.

 

[Bthoth]

The discussion is about SCIENCE -- Creation -- and religion. How do you define science, first of all? One definition of science: (yes, I know there are different "branches" of science, but looking for a broad definition):
Science: "The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained:"
If possible, limit discussion to the definition of SCIENCE before striking out to other areas.

the title caused me to look up:

Why Carl Sagan believed that science is a source of spirituality​

Science will lead us to a universal morality and a cosmic religion.

• Albert Einstein and Carl Sagan thought that science and spirituality were compatible.
• "We can assist the Universe in its process of cosmic awakening by working together and cultivating “meta-awareness.”

Science is not a religion but can assist mankind is comprehending the experience of being alive.

 

[cladking]

Atheism and theism are all tied to the question of existence of deity or deities. It is a question about religion.

Neither of them have anything to do with science, especially not with Natural Sciences.

This is your opinion.

And you are intentionally using a different definition of the term as I to obfuscate.

 

[gnostic]

This is your opinion.

And you are intentionally using a different definition of the term as I to obfuscate.

the only person obfuscating is you.

you often define words in your own weird and stupid definitions that no one else would use, except you of course.

you also fabricate term that no one would use, except you. Especially this stupid Homo Omnisciensis garbage. As no one else use it, this term is useless and meaningless.

Who follow your philosophy and your conspiracy theory except yourself. So don’t tell me I am obfuscating, when you doing exactly that. Look in the mirror, stop blaming everyone else for your faults and failures.

To you, only your opinions matter…when the truth, is that people are fed up with your word games, with your strawman and with your conspiracies.

 

[osgart]

This is the part I disagree with.

Yes, there are some philosophies where there are some matches between the two, such as Natural Philosophy, Methodological Naturalism, Metaphysical Naturalism, Empiricism, Logical Positivism, and some others.

You will have to be more specific as to which one or ones you are talking about, osgart.

Because there are whole lot of philosophies out there, that have absolutely nothing to do with science whatsoever, literally hundreds of them, possibly even thousands of them, especially when you’d consider that some schools break off from their parent schools, and most of these I have not heard of them. Many of them are just useless garbage.

Before the sciences were called “Natural Sciences” (from the mid-19th century), and before “Natural Sciences” were broken down into different spheres of sciences, such as -

• Physics,
• Chemistry,
• Earth Sciences,
• Astronomy, and
• Life Sciences…

…Natural Sciences were actually called “Natural Philosophy”, prior to the mid-19th century.

Natural Philosophy started back in Ancient Greece, in the Archaic period, when some Greek natural philosophers tried to break away from the traditions and away from the superstitions of Greek religions. From every early on, the natural philosophers saw part of their solutions with mathematics, particularly geometry.

It was Thomas Henry Huxley, who revolutionised public school and university education system in the UK, to separate anything relating to religions (eg theology) from science classrooms and lectures. In the 18th century, the Age of Enlightenment have already started to separate state and law from religion, but this separation did not occur in the education system, until Huxley started the separation that would spread quickly across Europe, then to the American continents, and then to Asia in the 20th century.

Methodological Naturalism is the one that come closest to Natural Sciences and Physical Sciences, in particular the needs that each model must meet the requirements of -

1. Falsification (or Falsifiability)
2. the Scientific Method

Scientific Method involves a whole lot of steps, but it can be broadly tied down two main steps:

1. Formulating the Hypothesis
2. Testing the Hypothesis (which also analysing the test results)

All proposed models must be tested, before they can be accepted as “science“, but not just new models. Any changes to models, must also be tested.

Science may be tied to only some of the philosophies, but not to all philosophies.

I do not have any problems with what you say.

I will say general religious questions about the ultimate nature of reality and its purposes or meaningfulness are not scientific questions because they are not physically falsifiable.

Specific religions often fall into the realm of refutability because of their claims to historical accuracy, and literal interpretations. Yet general religious questions do not fall into the category of being testable or falsifiable. Religion in a general sense is accepted by intuitions. The idea of souls, or a spiritual realm, or grande purpose and creative agency are not scientific questions. It may sound ridiculous to a naturalist to have such intuitions, but I don't see many scientists actively trying to falsify religion in this sense.

Most religion followers feel they have all the proof they need, and they feel intuition is often reliable. So they see that reason and the mind is sufficient to answer their religious questions. Philosophy of religion relies heavily on intuition, and reasoning arguments that way when they go about their proofs.

My religious convictions are based on my intuitions and speculations from those convictions. I don't see any falsification for them. Metaphysics of any kind is intuition based.

 

[YoursTrue]

the title caused me to look up:

Why Carl Sagan believed that science is a source of spirituality​

Science will lead us to a universal morality and a cosmic religion.

• Albert Einstein and Carl Sagan thought that science and spirituality were compatible.
• "We can assist the Universe in its process of cosmic awakening by working together and cultivating “meta-awareness.”

Science is not a religion but can assist mankind is comprehending the experience of being alive.

I know I am alive in a physical and spiritual sense. I know Carl Sagan is not at the moment. He is dead.

 

[YoursTrue]

the only person obfuscating is you.

you often define words in your own weird and stupid definitions that no one else would use, except you of course.

you also fabricate term that no one would use, except you. Especially this stupid Homo Omnisciensis garbage. As no one else use it, this term is useless and meaningless.

Who follow your philosophy and your conspiracy theory except yourself. So don’t tell me I am obfuscating, when you doing exactly that. Look in the mirror, stop blaming everyone else for your faults and failures.

To you, only your opinions matter…when the truth, is that people are fed up with your word games, with your strawman and with your conspiracies.

Really? Homo sapiens means what?

 

[cladking]

the only person obfuscating is you.

you often define words in your own weird and stupid definitions that no one else would use, except you of course.

you also fabricate term that no one would use, except you. Especially this stupid Homo Omnisciensis garbage. As no one else use it, this term is useless and meaningless.

Who follow your philosophy and your conspiracy theory except yourself. So don’t tell me I am obfuscating, when you doing exactly that. Look in the mirror, stop blaming everyone else for your faults and failures.

To you, only your opinions matter…when the truth, is that people are fed up with your word games, with your strawman and with your conspiracies.

There's so much wrong with your posts I don't know where to start. How many times have I defined "metaphysics" for you personally? How am I supposed to communicate with someone who uses his own definitions for every single word no matter how many times they are defined? You don't get to define the words I use. You define the words you use. Just as opinion has no effect on reality your intentional misparsing of my words has no effect on my meaning and then you respond to something else.

It's the exact same way with "natural science". You know full well I use the term to refer to things like Beaver Science, Bee Science or even Homo Sapien Science. Yet here you are parsing it otherwise.

You know for a fact there was no speciation event immediately prior to recorded history so you know for a fact that we are the same species that lived in caves. You know for a fact it is unnecessary to create a new term for our new species such as homo omnisciencis or homo circularis rationatio. I got more of them but the former is most likely to stick when the iff speciation event is discovered by Peers.

I know you think science is about evidence and peer review. But no matter how many times I tell you that neither of these has any metaphysical meaning in the definition of science you persist. You are simply mistaken. Our science is based on observation and experiment and employs a loose process called the "scientific method" which does not exclude everything but book learning. The opinions of individuals is irrelevant whether they are a witch doctor or a peer because this is how science really works. Peers don't need to sign off on truth, experiment, or the American way. Reality exists exists outside of your beliefs. The world will muddle through after you are gone and science will change after each Peer dies; not because reality changes at funerals but because books change after funerals.

I've stated all this in very many ways. My guess is that if you respond at all it will be just like you didn't read this post.

 

[cladking]

Not what I asked. You said there's a theory of no God. Can you show it to me?

People who believe in science believe extrapolation of theory is also real. If no God is necessary or apparent and everything is known then one can legitimately say 'no God exists". As I said many skeptics believe no God exists as surely as they believe there is no Loch Ness Monster.

 

[John53]

People who believe in science believe extrapolation of theory is also real. If no God is necessary or apparent and everything is known then one can legitimately say 'no God exists". As I said many skeptics believe no God exists as surely as they believe there is no Loch Ness Monster.

I'm still waiting for you to show me evidence of the theory of no God. At this point I'm suspecting you made it up and are embarrassed to admit it.

 

[John53]

People who believe in science believe extrapolation of theory is also real. If no God is necessary or apparent and everything is known then one can legitimately say 'no God exists". As I said many skeptics believe no God exists as surely as they believe there is no Loch Ness Monster.

You claimed there is a theory of no God, show me where I can read about this theory. I've googled it and can find no such theory.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I know Carl Sagan is not at the moment. He is dead.

Yep, “at the moment.”
Boy, won’t he be surprised when he gets resurrected?!!

So many will be flabbergasted!